Enough people took Brian Fargo's positive comments about Origin's support for crowd-funded games as an indication that Wasteland 2 might be an Origin exclusive that the inXile Entertainment CEO took to Twitter to correct that mistaken impression. He says: "It is absolutely NOT going to be exclusive on Origin. They are just one of many digital stores we will support." Thanks nin.

Jerykk wrote on May 20, 2012, 18:38:Dragon Age was an old-school CRPG, which again, most publishers would have avoided. While EA did turn the game into a multiplatform release, I'm sure any other publisher would have done the same. Note that the PC version remained the lead SKU, something other publishers would not have done.

Please. You're acting as if EA did that out of the kindness of their fucking hearts. Dragon Age was close to DONE by the time EA bought Bioware. How would it have made ANY sense, even to those dipshits at EA, to shift the lead SKU at that point? There was a PC game, and nothing else.

"HAI GUYZ LETS MAKE TEH XBOX TEH LEAD SKU!!"

Come on. You're trying to blow sunshine up EA's ass for shit it had simply no other choice in. Had they bought Origin during the first year of DA:O, they would have turned it into a piece of shit like Dragon Age 2.

How do I know that? Because that's exactly what they DID when they were involved in a Dragon Age from the start. Again, stop clapping your hands for EA where they don't fucking deserve it.

Creston

DA2 was rushed but most of its poor design choices had nothing to do with consoles. It was just poor design on behalf of Bioware. The voiced, largely predefined protagonist, conversation wheel, wave-based enemy spawning, button-mashing-friendly combat (except on Nightmare difficulty), etc... these were all design choices to make the game more "visceral and cinematic." Bioware already jumped onto the "visceral and cinematic" boat with Jade Empire, long before they were bought by EA. DAO was an anomaly. DA2 simply followed the trend set by the first Mass Effect (which EA wasn't involved with).

Jerykk wrote on May 20, 2012, 18:38:Dragon Age was an old-school CRPG, which again, most publishers would have avoided. While EA did turn the game into a multiplatform release, I'm sure any other publisher would have done the same. Note that the PC version remained the lead SKU, something other publishers would not have done.

Please. You're acting as if EA did that out of the kindness of their fucking hearts. Dragon Age was close to DONE by the time EA bought Bioware. How would it have made ANY sense, even to those dipshits at EA, to shift the lead SKU at that point? There was a PC game, and nothing else.

"HAI GUYZ LETS MAKE TEH XBOX TEH LEAD SKU!!"

Come on. You're trying to blow sunshine up EA's ass for shit it had simply no other choice in. Had they bought Origin during the first year of DA:O, they would have turned it into a piece of shit like Dragon Age 2.

How do I know that? Because that's exactly what they DID when they were involved in a Dragon Age from the start. Again, stop clapping your hands for EA where they don't fucking deserve it.

Like I said, it's close - at this point it's academic as far as which is the worse company. But I'm not interested in cheering EA, not when they've destroyed so many once- great studios, Bioware being only the latest. It will take more than a few no-brainer PC ports and a cute little side indie project to make me stop thinking of them as a detestable conglomeration of creativity-killing, greed-driven, spiteful, clueless suits. Their history speaks for itself.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

That's a bit short-sighted. Games like Dead Space, Mass Effect, Mirror's Edge, Dragon Age, Crysis, Battlefield, etc, could not be created without tens of millions of dollars and raising that kind of money as an indie developer just isn't going to happen. Without EA's funding, those games would not exist so you have to give them at least a little credit.

So the best thing you can say about EA is that they have large coffers. Without EA I think all of those games would still exist; they would have just been released under different publishers. And maybe have been better games. Look at the drop in quality between Dragon Age 1 and 2. Most of DA:Origins was developed before Bioware got absorbed by EA - the only thing EA can take credit for is that game's abysmal marketing campaign. Microsoft has its own console so it has its own self-serving interests in demanding exclusivity. EA does not. They do ports, but that's because they have at least enough combined intelligence to know that PC ports of decent games is easy money most of the time. What little credit that may earn them is dwarfed by the scorn they so richly deserve for being gigantic asses in virtually every other conceivable way.

Valve is by no means close to perfect, but they are so far above the likes of EA in just how they treat the PC community that any comparison is almost laughable.

It's possible that other publishers would have picked up these games, yes. It's also possible that they wouldn't have. Mirror's Edge, being a first-person platformer, was a gamble that most publishers would have likely avoided. Dragon Age was an old-school CRPG, which again, most publishers would have avoided. While EA did turn the game into a multiplatform release, I'm sure any other publisher would have done the same. Note that the PC version remained the lead SKU, something other publishers would not have done. Crysis was a PC-exclusive FPS. How many other publishers release big budget, PC-exclusive shooters these days? BF3, while not a PC-exclusive, used the PC as the lead platform. And when it comes to ports, EA's ports tend to be better than other publishers'. For one, they're usually released at the same time as the console versions, unlike Ubisoft's, Activision's or Rockstar's long-delayed ports. Hell, Activision doesn't even market their PC ports at all. If all you saw were the trailers and ads for Wolfenstein, Singularity, Prototype or pretty much any other Activision game, you'd have no idea that they were actually coming out for PC.

I'm not saying EA is perfect or anything. Their marketing campaigns for DAO and DA2 were terrible and DA2 was clearly rushed. They've also milked some franchises into irrelevance (NFS, C&C). However, all of this pales in comparison to the shit that MS has done over the years. Hell, since they created the Xbox, they've done significant damage to the PC as a gaming platform.

Jerykk wrote on May 20, 2012, 03:21:You should also give them some credit for at least supporting the PC. If EA hadn't bought Bioware, Bioware would still be making Xbox-exclusives. The only reason Mass Effect ever came to PC or PS3 was because of EA.

Errr.. *cough* DragonAgeWasPCExclusiveUntilEABoughtBioware *cough*

For that matter, DA2 is the travesty it is because EA wanted a sequel in the marketplace the next year.

And I think ME-PC was announced before EA bought Bioware, but that's off the top of my head, so I could be wrong. Anyway, this was before Bioware got turned into EAware and only gives a shit about selling EAware points anymore.

For starters, virtually every KS project was offering their games via-Steam. They clearly felt it was worthwhile doing so.

Ok, so that proves that they want to distribute through Steam. Does nothing to show that Valve is giving them 90 free days.

And Valve doesn't release its developer/publisher terms to the public and doesn't comment on their business practices

Sure they do, you can find info on their business practises on the Steam website.

If you're trying to convince me that EA isn't a shitty company then you're doing a very bad job.

Thanks for proving my point so elequently. I haven't been trying to convince you of any such thing. You're looking at this as a black-and-white scenario, when it's clearly not. It's possible for EA to be a shitty company, and still do some things that are good. Rather than looking at this as some sort of nefarious plot on EA's part, why not just agree that occasionally EA can do something decent? That doesn't mean all the stuff they've done that sucks doesn't still suck, because it does.

That's a bit short-sighted. Games like Dead Space, Mass Effect, Mirror's Edge, Dragon Age, Crysis, Battlefield, etc, could not be created without tens of millions of dollars and raising that kind of money as an indie developer just isn't going to happen. Without EA's funding, those games would not exist so you have to give them at least a little credit.

So the best thing you can say about EA is that they have large coffers. Without EA I think all of those games would still exist; they would have just been released under different publishers. And maybe have been better games. Look at the drop in quality between Dragon Age 1 and 2. Most of DA:Origins was developed before Bioware got absorbed by EA - the only thing EA can take credit for is that game's abysmal marketing campaign. Microsoft has its own console so it has its own self-serving interests in demanding exclusivity. EA does not. They do ports, but that's because they have at least enough combined intelligence to know that PC ports of decent games is easy money most of the time. What little credit that may earn them is dwarfed by the scorn they so richly deserve for being gigantic asses in virtually every other conceivable way.

Valve is by no means close to perfect, but they are so far above the likes of EA in just how they treat the PC community that any comparison is almost laughable.

This comment was edited on May 20, 2012, 10:15.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Bhruic wrote on May 20, 2012, 08:42:Well, as neither of us have details, I certainly can't prove they don't, but where is your evidence to suggest that it's plausible - let alone likely? Has there been any stories about Valve doing anything for Kickstarter projects? Considering how quickly this story hit the news, a similar story from Valve should have been equally well reported, but I find no such story.

For starters, virtually every KS project was offering their games via-Steam. They clearly felt it was worthwhile doing so. Further, Valve has a long history of supporting indie developers whereas EA doesn't. And Valve doesn't release its developer/publisher terms to the public and doesn't comment on their business practices - this was best demonstrated when EA was bitching in the press about Steam, whereas Valve said nothing.

Bhruic wrote on May 20, 2012, 08:42:So again, that's just bias talking. "EA is doing something decent, and they are totally shitty, so there's no way they could be doing something decent unless they were getting forced to by Valve."

Pretty much. Valve has lead the market, whereas EA has resisted at every opportunity. EA led the market with the DRM limited activations in Spore, refused to let people redownload their games, charge obscene prices for games and boycott Steam. I've had to deal with EA's bullshit DRM locking me out of games, which required contacting their support services - all of which are obviously based in India based upon the rep names and the horrible broken English responses.

If you're trying to convince me that EA isn't a shitty company then you're doing a very bad job. One gesture like this isn't enough to counter the horrible things they've done to gamers.

And how does it manage this increase in EA's market share? Again, it's not an Origin exlusive. People aren't going to be required to flock to Origin to try and buy the game.

which it will then abuse in the same its been doing for decades.

First off, if you go back a decade, EA was quite a good company. It's only recently that they've been making anti-consumer decisions. Secondly, how exactly have they been "abusing" market share?

I didn't claim that every single business decision that EA makes is inherently abusive

No, but you (and others) have turned a story about how EA is doing something decent for Kickstarter projects into an "OMFG, EA is the fucking devil!" story.

It's pretty simple, if you'd rather keep using Steam, retail, or whatever you use to buy games, that's fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone who dislikes Origin to use it. Hell, I won't be buying any of the games on Origin - although that's mainly because Origin charges tax where Steam doesn't. But I'm fairly confident at least some people will buy it on Origin, so if the developers end up getting more money because of that fact - and because EA is effectively giving it to them - I don't mind admitting that EA is doing a decent thing.

However, we don't know what terms Valve offers and it's entirely plausible / likely that it offers the same or better terms and EA is only responding because it doesn't want to be ignored as a platform.

Well, as neither of us have details, I certainly can't prove they don't, but where is your evidence to suggest that it's plausible - let alone likely? Has there been any stories about Valve doing anything for Kickstarter projects? Considering how quickly this story hit the news, a similar story from Valve should have been equally well reported, but I find no such story.

So again, that's just bias talking. "EA is doing something decent, and they are totally shitty, so there's no way they could be doing something decent unless they were getting forced to by Valve."

Bhruic wrote on May 19, 2012, 20:29:By all means, explain how giving developers 90 free days is abusive.

When you can't do that - because it's not - but you won't admit that EA is doing a decent thing, you'll understand why your hatred is blind.

It's designed to increase EA's market share, which it will then abuse in the same its been doing for decades. But don't get me wrong, I didn't claim that every single business decision that EA makes is inherently abusive. However, we don't know what terms Valve offers and it's entirely plausible / likely that it offers the same or better terms and EA is only responding because it doesn't want to be ignored as a platform.

Jerykk wrote on May 19, 2012, 19:37:I disagree that EA is the worst company in America. I think MS easily takes the cake for that. While EA has some anti-competitive practices (like requiring Origin for all their PC games), MS surpasses them.

I wasn't endorsing it as my personal opinion. There are plenty of banks and oil companies that are more deserving of the award. As for Microsoft, there is no disputing that it has abused its market position. Certainly it's not as bad as it used to be - largely because its influence has declined - but it still regularly screws over PC gamers in order to favour the X360. Then again, Intel did exactly the same thing to AMD. And Apple launches lawsuits at the drop of a hat, despite ripping off other companies ideas with reckless abandon. Microsoft took things too far but it moderated its business practices when it received a record fine from the EU (€899m /$1.44bn) - incidentally, Intel went on to receive an even larger fine (€1.06bn).

I am much more concerned about EA's business practices than those of Microsoft at the moment, though both are very troubling.

Wraith wrote on May 20, 2012, 06:19:Shit Brian, who cares if it's a fucking exclusive. You shouldn't be getting into bed with EA in the first fucking place when you're using Kickstarter money to fund you.

There's two very good reasons not to go Origin. The first is that Kickstarter changes the fundamental developer/publisher relationship and elevates the developer above the level of common serf.

Publishers screw over developers like you wouldn't believe and any independently funded project has an edge over the traditional arrangement which sees publishers use milestone cheques to hold the developer to ransom.

Do you seriously think Wasteland 2 is going to get a reputation for a positive gaming experience on EA's piece of shit distribution service? A service which is known for its many issues and which will give EA the opportunity to create unhappy customers by screwing you over.

EA does not want Kickstarter projects to succeed. It undermines their fundamental financial power when negotiating with a developer.

Second is that EA are basically the same piece of shit cock-suckers who've been screwing gamers over to an increasing degree. Supporting EA is like giving a ride to the abusive husband who beats his wife because he'll toss you some gas money. It's selling your principles out for a couple of bucks.

When you finance shit yourselves, I don't care what you do - when you're using Kickstarter dollars, you really need to demonstrate some ethical cojones. Because WHO these donations benefit is a question that everyone will be asking eventually.

Does anyone seriously think people give to Kickstarter projects so the leeches at Electronic Arts can make a buck out of it? At least have the decency to state that shit up front before you start putting your hand out and asking for cash.

Wow. You act like EA is publishing Wasteland 2 or something. They aren't. They have no involvement with the game's development whatsoever. They are merely one of many digital distributors who will sell the game once it is finished. Also, for the first 90 days, EA won't make a penny from Wasteland 2 sales on Origin. Zero. Nada. Nothing. After that 90 days, they'll probably take a 30% cut, just like Steam, GamersGate, Amazon, Impulse, GetGames, GreenManGaming, GOG, GameFly, etc. Again, none of this has any impact on the game's development whatsoever.

As for the experience of playing Wasteland 2 on Origin, I expect it will be exactly the same as playing it on any other digital distribution client. You download it, install it and then play it. With Origin, you don't even need to run the Origin client after you install the game. You could install Wasteland 2, close Origin, never use Origin ever again and Wasteland 2 would work just fine.

I've seen irrational hatred before but this really takes the cake. I'm not really sure what you want here. Do you not want Wasteland 2 to be sold through any digital distributor? Or just Origin? How about Impulse, which is owned by GameStop? If selling through Origin and GameStop helps inXile make more money (which in turn improves post-release support and future projects), is it really so terrible that third-parties get a relatively small cut? Personally, I loathe GameStop so I don't buy anything from them, online or in stores, but I'm not going to go on a belligerent tirade about publishers and developers selling games through Impulse. Revenue is revenue and indie developers need as many revenue sources as possible.

Shit Brian, who cares if it's a fucking exclusive. You shouldn't be getting into bed with EA in the first fucking place when you're using Kickstarter money to fund you.

There's two very good reasons not to go Origin. The first is that Kickstarter changes the fundamental developer/publisher relationship and elevates the developer above the level of common serf.

Publishers screw over developers like you wouldn't believe and any independently funded project has an edge over the traditional arrangement which sees publishers use milestone cheques to hold the developer to ransom.

Do you seriously think Wasteland 2 is going to get a reputation for a positive gaming experience on EA's piece of shit distribution service? A service which is known for its many issues and which will give EA the opportunity to create unhappy customers by screwing you over.

EA does not want Kickstarter projects to succeed. It undermines their fundamental financial power when negotiating with a developer.

Second is that EA are basically the same piece of shit cock-suckers who've been screwing gamers over to an increasing degree. Supporting EA is like giving a ride to the abusive husband who beats his wife because he'll toss you some gas money. It's selling your principles out for a couple of bucks.

When you finance shit yourselves, I don't care what you do - when you're using Kickstarter dollars, you really need to demonstrate some ethical cojones. Because WHO these donations benefit is a question that everyone will be asking eventually.

Does anyone seriously think people give to Kickstarter projects so the leeches at Electronic Arts can make a buck out of it? At least have the decency to state that shit up front before you start putting your hand out and asking for cash.

During my mercifully brief time with Origin recently (when I played the horrible Star Wars: ToR for a few weeks before unsubscribing in disgust), I determined that it is still awful - glitchy, barebones, cumbersome, and counterintuitive.

How, exactly? The only thing you have to do with Origin if you buy SW:TOR through them - and you claimed a friend bought the game for you. After it's bought, you don't deal with Origin at all, the game has a separate launcher which is untied to Origin in any way. You literally would never have to run Origin at all.

Prez wrote on May 20, 2012, 02:11:Call me when EA actually puts some real time and effort into making Origin a service remotely worth using.

Yeah I know. Steam isn't exactly the most polished of interfaces (I think working on the interface isn't very interesting to the employees), and EA had a great chance to hire a few UI programmers and polish origin and add features. But they didn't even bother to try and make a worthy competitor to steam. Its not like it would cost them very much, and its not like they don't have the money. They just chose the cheap route and made a mediocre competitor.

I've got to give the nod for my personal worst gaming company to EA, though Microsoft is right behind them. I think that MS at least makes an excellent OS on which to game (every other generation anyway) gives them at least some redemption in my eyes. EA doesn't give the community anything good. That some games under the EA brand are still worth owning is a testament to the quality of the games' developers, and happen in spite of EA's involvement, not because of it.

That's a bit short-sighted. Games like Dead Space, Mass Effect, Mirror's Edge, Dragon Age, Crysis, Battlefield, etc, could not be created without tens of millions of dollars and raising that kind of money as an indie developer just isn't going to happen. Without EA's funding, those games would not exist so you have to give them at least a little credit. You should also give them some credit for at least supporting the PC. If EA hadn't bought Bioware, Bioware would still be making Xbox-exclusives. The only reason Mass Effect ever came to PC or PS3 was because of EA.

As for Origin, while it's nowhere near as good as Steam, I haven't had any particular issues with it. Installing, updating and running games has been a cinch. If the game doesn't require Origin, you don't even need to run it in the background. Also, Origin lets you install games wherever you want which comes in handy when you're running out of space on your usual drive.

I've got to give the nod for my personal worst gaming company to EA, though Microsoft is right behind them. I think that MS at least makes an excellent OS on which to game (every other generation anyway) gives them at least some redemption in my eyes. EA doesn't give the community anything good. That some games under the EA brand are still worth owning is a testament to the quality of the games' developers, and happen in spite of EA's involvement, not because of it.

During my mercifully brief time with Origin recently (when I played the horrible Star Wars: ToR for a few weeks before unsubscribing in disgust), I determined that it is still awful - glitchy, barebones, cumbersome, and counterintuitive. A completely frustrating experience. I'll stick with Steam, thanks. Call me when EA actually puts some real time and effort into making Origin a service remotely worth using.

This comment was edited on May 20, 2012, 02:20.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Digitalfiend wrote on May 19, 2012, 20:46:Most big businesses are like that: IBM, Apple, Oracle, Google, EA, Activision, etc. Any company that's made it to the big time has, at one time, done something that someone, somewhere would consider unethical; most of the time there are numerous transgressions. As a developer myself, I've seen my fair share of questionable business practices from Bell and IBM consultants.

The problem is that MS does it on a regular basis. In fact, it's an exception to the rule when they do something that doesn't screw customers over.

Most big businesses are like that: IBM, Apple, Oracle, Google, EA, Activision, etc. Any company that's made it to the big time has, at one time, done something that someone, somewhere would consider unethical; most of the time there are numerous transgressions. As a developer myself, I've seen my fair share of questionable business practices from Bell and IBM consultants.